tv [untitled] October 11, 2011 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
variations in the program that ultimately will be consistent with it. whether a building -- the 700 feet is filled immediately on the parcel adjacent instead of where we are showing it, that is the conversation that has to be had with our environmental planning division. ultimately, there's always minor variations. it just depends on how closely they are being analyzed. >> ok, final comment. the heights on folsom street are very low, given its proximity to the transbay terminal. is there any possibility of that? >> you are referring to the hype that range from 165 up to 350? those blocks are all part of zone 1 of the redevelopment
area. the planning department does not have control over those parcels. and that is there an opportunity through a separate process to revisit the heights in that zone that redevelopment controlled? >> good morning. senior project manager with the redevelopment agency. you know how long it takes to go through a process like that. of course there's always an opportunity to do that, but we are in the process of selling those processed -- those parcels right now. i do not think it is within the tjpa's plan to go through a separate rezoning process. if you think it is too short, i see where you're coming from, but it is pretty tall. one in particular is zoned for that height because it is adjacent to a new public park we
are building. they were not put there because they are some magic number. they were put there as a result of an analysis that showed wanted to get a certain amount of sunlight on the new open spaces we are creating, and that is why they are zoned that way. >> i like your vision. transit center is achieving the cultural prominence that medieval churches had in europe. that i like. we will have succeeded if that can happen. i have one question. you talk about, as part of this $4.2 billion transportation -- transit and other transportation budget, expanding board capacity -- expanding our capacity in montgomery and embarcadero stations here the last time i had conversations about those prospects, there was a lot of head scratching and
people looking at their shoes. nobody could figure out how that could be done. has that changed? >> the improvements that would be included would be modest. when we sit down with our staff, they indicated that they have some concepts for some vertical circulation improvements and variegated improvements that are not actually extremely large price tags. they are in the $10 million or $20 million range that would provide more capacity to hold people on the platform so it would stave off hitting capacity by a few more years and. >> i cannot recall the specifics.
i think maybe there was an additional vertical circulation, but i cannot recall the specifics. >> thank you. any other questions? >> thank you, directors. from all right. go ahead and move into your next item. item nine is authorizing the executive director to execute modification 5, city agreement with evans brothers for additional construction services required. it would increase the contract some were a total contract some of $15,602,208. >> steve will report on this item. >> this is basically made up of two packages of miscellaneous changes. one of them is what we call change order 19, which picks up a lot of miscellaneous items that occurred during the
project, including some expediting of some early work, additional asphalt where we felt that additional sidewalks need to be placed at the location of some fire hydrant evolves. some additional hazardous waste removal. there was additional time spent on helping the artist doing the rough shaping of his artwork. some overtime work to avoid disturbing the neighbors during the work hours. additional poll foundations for some street lights that were relocated. the second part were related to the demolition of the added building. on the initial change order, the hazardous waste removal aspect had not been determined. that is now covered in this change order. we have not had access to the buildings ahead of time to assess the level of hazardous material. in addition, because of the lack of access to one of the
buildings, we were unable to determine exactly what the existing condition of the building, the type of materials used, and it came back. when they started taking it down, it was more difficult to separate the debris. there was more wood than what we thought was concrete. it required extra time to take that are part and separate it. some removal of appliances and trash removal that was required, things left behind by the tenants, also made the decision to offer all the concrete on this particular case because we already noticed that there was a surplus of recycled concrete on site. that was an alternate included in the original proposal that we did not execute with the initial change order, and it was originally $67,000. we negotiated and down to $61,000 on the ultimate -- on that alternate. if there are questions, i would be happy to address them.
>> this originally came in at $10.5 million, and we are now coming up to $15.5 million. that is nearly a 50% jump from where we started. i guess one question is -- what was the original budget for this work? presumably, it did not have a 50% contingency. where is the balance coming from? specifically, why do we have such a high number of change orders? i understand that the alternates was a relatively small piece. >> difficult for me to address the first question. a lot of the changes during the course of the project were unforeseen additional conditions. once we start taking it down, a lot of additional asbestos- causing material that were not picked up in addition of -- initial surveys, issues like that.
as we went through the building, for example, the topic of the bath debt was not believed to have contain any asbestos material, but the actual topping material was asbestos, so all that material had to be hauled off site to a separate land fill. issues like that that came up during the course of the project. then, the addition of the four buildings at the end of the project was, as i recall, just around 900,000 for the last change order, so that was nearly 20% of that increase as well, so that was the additional buildings necessary for the change in the radius of the design. >> most of the change orders -- we do not take those lightly, and i will not sign them unless it is really an unforeseen conditions. that is one of the reasons we brought early so we have the benefit of a general contractor working with our architects so that we can build what is being
designed, but i can have jim kaufman speak to the original budget. when we put out the baby, the bids came in under the engineer 's estimates. we were fortunate in that way, and again, most of the chain orders -- change orders came in as a result on forseen, and we voted to demolish when the city voted to condemn them. >> i am with the transbay program management team, and i take care of the budget. a work in total is around $16 million. the contract it came in underneath that. the balance of that money is held in contingency to cover these kinds of events. for delivery this kind of work, you are going to run into unknowns, the ability for the contractor to estimate accurately from day one is
suspect. we recognized a sufficient contingency to cover these changes. in addition to that, actually about $1 million for the additional properties that were required for eminent domain, we cannot include in the original bid documents because at the time, tjpa did not own the property. we knew we had that chunk of work that had to be added later to the contracts when the properties were acquired. even though the contract, if you look at the contract itself, it did show an increase in growth, it did not really affect our overall budget. >> do we expect more modifications to the contract to come forward? >> no, they are done. >> there is one cleanup. they did some overtime in the final months. we did not get into this just
because of the board calendar and everything. there is some sidewalks that need to be replaced that we are looking at having them do as well. we are working on that, and that, hopefully, is a final and will be in front of you for the october board meeting. they are minor compared to these. >> the work has already been completed? >> the overtime was completed as part of getting the archaeologist started as quickly as possible, so as not to delay the follow-on work. it is, like, $1,700. it just did not make it into this item for the board. >> last question -- i noticed that you said dbe or sbe actual were significantly under the goals. >> we are working on that. i think they are working on around 3% or 4%.
they will not unfortunately get to their goal. but we are finding out if they are under reporting or not reporting some of their trucking dollars. something has gone as you in the process, so that as part of the closeout we are doing with them and some final reporting on material recycling, items like that. >> is their opportunity in the sidewalk work to set aside that work for dbe's and/or -- >> it is very minor, but i will talk to the contractor about that. anything else? >> i really empathize. everybody has seen the cartoon with the disney name "contract" hanging behind a yacht named "change order" -- the dinghy
named "contract." there was asbestos in it and we did not know that, but that does not mean that the contractor should not have done some things, but i am glad that those things are steering around in people's minds. that is the real question -- who bore the risk of something not being foreseen -- unforeseeable is different. unforeseen does not answer the question. >> good point. specifically on these buses, there was a report that the contract had at the time, and there were line items in their bid corresponding to what was anticipated, but for instance, in the asbestos-containing material area, there was significantly more than what the initial reports that they had at the time showed. including this popping material that no one anticipated. then, one of the other larger change orders was the fremont
street shoring wall. we have the demo contractor do some of the preparation work that was necessary for that follow one but does work. the majority of the transit center demolition, they left in place the basement lab. we got the subsequent footings underneath it in preparation for the contractor did come in and remove the wood contractors, and it also included adding a temporary shoring wall along fremont street. it was a change in scope that came about after the initial information for big time. >> ok. any other questions? we have a motion for approval. is there a second? ok, motion and second. any objections? >> item 9 is approved. >> all right. thank you very much.
>> we will go ahead and move into item 10, authorizing the executive director to execute amendment two to the intergovernmental agreement with the san francisco public utilities commission to provide of sillery water supply system valve services for an amount not to exceed $550,000 for a total amount of the agreement not to exceed $1,150,000 for a term not to exceed eight years for the effective date of the agreement. >> by way of background for the new directors, we have a number of intergovernmental agreements with a variety of san francisco city departments that work with us very closely on the project, and the san francisco public utilities commission is one of them. >> good morning, directors. as mentioned in an earlier part of the presentation, we are nearing the end of our utility relocation for the first phase of the project. relocation of the of solar water supply system on mission and howard is the last package, and it is slated to start in january
2012 and finished around may. this amendment to the agreement with the puc covers the puc's procurement and installation of the valves. this is the scope of the agreement, and that number to a wheel. happy to answer any questions. >> i just have one question on this. when we see on the agenda that the "not to exceed" price goes up when there is added scope, does that mean that the prior "not to exceed" for each of the two or three parts, each of the three things -- that those can utilities commission no overrun on one and make it up and under run on another? >> in a sense, and the initial
agreement and second amendment should be approved. once it gets approved, we issued a task order or a series of task orders to the puc for specific items. the puc then is obligated to provide those services within the task order budget amount. in effect, -- >> so those subcaps still hold. >> yes, but we do that here strictly to the budget. >> any questions? motion for approval? second. >> no members of the public wanted to address you on item. >> no objections. approved unanimously. >> item 10 is approved. ï»¿item 11. appointing sara gigliotti to the position of chief financial officer for the tjpa.
>> we created the tjpa in 2001. i stayed with the city and county from 2001 until 2003 running the tjpa. december 1, 2003, i severed from the city, the tjpa moved to a separate office space at mission where we are currently located it was myself and all of the transbay documents until march of 2004 where i hired my first staff person. that person was sara dilaudid. sir worked at our office manager from 2004 through 2007 where she was then promoted to our contracts compliance manager. -- sara gigliotti. prior to that time in march 2003, because it was just myself, i entered into a number of agreements with the city and county of san francisco to
provide staff. we entered into an agreement where dennis ferreira was our general counsel. we entered into an agreement where ed harrington became our chief financial officer because of increasing duties over time we then hired our own chief financial officer who had worked with the city and county of san francisco for many years, fred clark. he came on board after ed harrington. he has continued to be our chief financial officer and he created all of our finance controls, internal accounting procedures. he set up everything with us and has been working closely with sara over a number of years. fred is now getting ready to retire in two years or so, so we need to bring on board a chief financial officer that can take on those duties. sara has been leading a staff of four people working in the finance controls. as directors know that have been
sitting on the board, we have excellent audit reports over the years. our budgets have increased from about $10 million when i started in 2001 to today over $363 million. she has done an excellent job as a our contrast -- contracts compliance manager. fred will continue in a more advisory role until everything is transitioned over. but given the complexity of our financial program, the largeness of the project -- and fred is recommending this, as you know from the letter in your packet -- we consider sara as our next chief financial officer. she has taken a number of classes at uc-berkeley, educated herself on anything and everything having to do with governmental accounting standards. she is on track to receive for certification, which is very
difficult to get. it is like passing the bar or getting your cpa certification. i would like to ask sara to come up and say a few words to the board. >> thank you. actually, i would like to thank maria and fred for giving me the opportunity to take on additional duties throughout the years, and interest to me with increased responsibilities. i would like to thank the staff for helping to manage the peninsula as possibilities. i will let thwould like to thane commission for considering this today. it has been an honor to watch the tjpa come from certifying the eir, one of the first things i helped area with, all night hearings from 2004 until now to walking by a construction site on my way to work. thank you for considering this.
i look forward to riding a bus to the new station in a few years. >> i would move approval. >> second. >> what exactly will mr. clark's that this be? >> he will be deputy cfo with sara. he will be working on a very carpet -- part-time basis. he is a tjpa employee. he is not a consultant and has not been a consultant. he has always been a tjpa employee. his hours would become less and less. >> and his compensation accordingly? >> yes. he is in his mid to late 80's, 70's?
he is prepared to retire. >> i certainly support the appointment and refer to your dad on this, but isn't a law by the tjpa that you did not have the authority to make this appointment? >> there are certain position that we bring directly to the board. that would be the board secretary, chief financial officer position, as well as general counsel position. general counsel position is now in dennis herrera. that was from a board resolution quite a while ago. nila was appointed earlier. the chief financial officer, and of course, my position. those are the only one that would come to this body. >> surprised we still have dennis, but i guess we still do. all right, motion, 2nd. any speakers?
>> no members of the public wish to address you on this item. all in favor? >> congratulations, sara. you have been here so i cannot say welcome aboard. >> item 11 is approved. item 1item 12. election of chair and vice chair pursuant to the tjpa joint powers agreement. >> i would like to make the proposal that supervisor kim the the chair of this body as the elected official, and as the representative of the district where this is all taking place. it would seem that the best choice to me. >> all right. we have nomination and a second for supervisor kim. any other nominations? seeing none. are there any objections to the
nomination? any members of the public wish to speak on the item? >> you have got it down now. >> if elected are you willing to serve? >> i do accept and am honored to serve as chair of this body. >> we have not voted yet. director kim: would be honored. >> [laughter] all in favor? >> the board has unanimously agreed to appoint supervisor kim as chair. the vice chair? >> any nominations for vice chair? >> i will nominate supervisor ortiz. >> second. >> nomination and second. any speakers? seeing none.
any objection? all approved? unanimous. >> my sister ortiz will continue on as vice chair. we have a new chair, director kim. --that include your regular calendar. we are scheduled to go into closed session at this time. we have not received any indication that a member of the public wants to address you on the item listed. we will go ahead and clear the room. >> the tjpa order directors meeting is now back in session. the board met in closed session for a conference with their realistic negotiators and there is no action to report.
>> you come around here up these stairs and then -- and give us some remarks here. please welcome our mayor, a deadly -- ed lee. [applause] >> welcome back good morning. welcome to sunny san francisco. thank you again, in general, for your work as a chair of our fleet weak association. you have really done a tremendous job. i wanted to add to your personal story. you know, i was sent over by former mayor gavin newsom to new orleans a few years ago, and we studied what had happened there, and we realized that one of these things that had occurred in new orleans was a breakdown between city government and the neighborhoods. and such that when the hurricanes it and the flooding happened, so many people left
that city, and then they did not come back, because there was no relationship between local governments in many of the neighborhoods and many of the residence. that lesson learned in my mind for a very long time. it is that much more important, general, that when you put this fleet week together, that you made disaster preparedness a theme, in an addition to the celebration of our armed forces. you really have touched not only our city government, you have helped me touch every neighborhood in this city. that is what we need to do in all of our cities. so thanks very much, general, for your leadership on this. thank you. [applause] i also want to thank again our honorary chair, the former secretaries. you have been such a great leader here. i want to thank you for helping us put this together. i know senator feinstein cannot be here, but again, your